AS OF DECEMBER 2013, NEW DIVREI TORAH WILL NOT BE POSTED HERE; THEY WILL BE POSTED AT MY OTHER WEBSITE, BEIS VAAD, beisvaad.blogspot.com Existing posts on this website will not be updated, and if there will be any new posts here, while they will be Torah-oriented, will not be yeshivish.

NOTE: BEGINNING DECEMBER 2013, ALL NEW POSTS OF SERIOUS DIVREI TORAH WILL BE POSTED ONLY AT Beis Vaad L'Chachamim, beisvaad.blogspot.com

For private communication, write to eliezer(no space)e at aol

Sunday, December 08, 2013

The basic thesis of this post is that the tension between a life immersed in Limud HaTorah and military service is as old as Klal Yisrael- perhaps even older. The antiquity and obduracy of this tension imply that it is a fundamental and creative element of our national identity.

Yissachar is a broad-boned donkey, lying between the boundaries. He saw a resting place, that it was good, and the land, that it was pleasant, and he bent his shoulder to bear [burdens], and he became an indentured laborer.

The Ibn Ezra, echoed by the Abarbanel, says that the tribe of Yissachar did not join the army. They were deeply bound to their land, and psychologically unfit for battle. Because of the inequity of their not participating in the wars fought by Klal Yisrael, they paid a high tax to cover their share of the war effort- or they gave a tribute to placate threatening neighbors.

The Sforno says almost the same thing. But with his addition of one new idea, he presents Yissachar in an entirely different light- that their unfitness/unwillingness stemmed from their preoccupation with and passion for learning Torah.

from Sforno in 49:14-

יששכר חמר. בלתי מוכן למלחמה. כאמרם אי ספרא לא סיפא.

(The Radak might have presented this idea before the Seforno, but I am not sure whether that is what the Radak means. I bring the Radak toward the end of this post.)

The Netziv develops this idea. The reason the tribe of Yissachar did not send soldiers to join in the wars of Klal Yisrael was because they were consumed with a passion for learning Torah, and being in the army and preoccupation with Torah are incompatible. But this calling did not relieve them of their obligation to share in the defense of Klal Yisrael. Their alternative service was the payment of a high tax to cover the costs of whoever had to replace them in the army.

☛A. If the Yissachar/Zevulun arrangement were still in force at that time, then the fact that Yissachar paid for their share of the war and for their military stand-ins couldn't be called "a tax on Yissachar." It would cost nothing to Yissachar and would just increase the burden on Zevulun. It must be that Yissachar did work to support themselves, and they worked twice as hard in order to pay the tax, but this left them the menuchas hanefesh to learn.

This explains why Yissachar paid the extra tax but Levi did not. Levi was supported by Klal Yisrael, so it wouldn't make sense to tax them. The burden would just devolve on the rest of Klal Yisrael. Another difference is that Levi did not receive any private agricultural land in Israel, so their exemption would not be seen as inequitable and would not arouse resentment.

-Important note: Eli, in the comments, tells us that from the pesukim in Divrei Hayamim it appears that David Hamelech ended the exemption of Shevet Levi as well, despite the fact that the Leviim were always supported by others and its members never received any private agricultural property.

-Another important note from Eli in the comments: Eli directs our attention to the Medrash Rabba 99:8-9, here and here, that indicates that there are two models of Zevulun's support of Yissachar. One is the money-in-the-envelope model, which is what I assumed, but the other is that Yissachar grew produce and delivered it to Zevulun, who then marketed it far away where it was more valuable. Zevulun was the entrepreneur who spent his time finding and exploiting markets, traveling and handeling, while Yissachar worked close to home. If this was the case, then the tax might have co-existed with Zevulun's "support."

Great Unknown, in private communication, suggested that Talmidei Chachamim are only exempt from paying for defensive war, similar to paying שכר השומרים, while this was an expansionist war. A better answer from Chaim B follows below in C-2-a.

☛C. I posted this discussion for informational purposes only. Any attempt to derive political capital from these sources would be self-defeating. Even if the Netziv supported one side, all that would happen would be that the other side would passel the Netziv, just as they passel the Tiferes Yisrael and the Torah Temimah and the the Maharitz Chiyos and Reb Yosef Ber Soloveitchik and on and on. But in any case, the words of the Netziv simultaneously support and contradict all current positions. From the Netziv we see three things.

☞1. Preoccupation with learning Torah was a valid reason to avoid military service, even for large numbers of people.

☞2. People availing themselves of this exemption had to pay a very costly tax to fund their replacements.

a. Chaim B. points out that the Netziv in the Sheiltos makes a very important point, which he left out in his pirush on Chumash. He says that this arrangement was made with the agreement of the other Shevatim: וכל אחיהם הסכימו להם. It was not unilaterally imposed upon them by Yissachar by fiat.

i. I think that even though it involved the agreement of the other Shevatim, they would not have agreed if they did not approve. If they hadn't approved, then every rich shevet would avail itself of this option of paying others to fight in their place. This indicates that the other Shevatim recognized the great value of what Yissachar was doing, but only to the extent that it deferred them from active participation. They felt that Yissachar still had to pay for their replacements. But we cannot deny the fact that according to the Netziv, if the other Shevatim would not have recognized the value of learning, even if this was because their hashkafos were flawed, Yissachar would have no right to unilaterally impose their wishes on the Klal.

ii. Chaim's point might answer the question from the Rambam in B. The tax exemption for Talmidei Chachamim is not relevant to this "tax," which was a negotiated alternative to military service. Proof for his excellent answer is from the Gemara in BB 8 (הכל לכריא פתיא אפילו מרבנן) that even Talmidei Chachamim are obligated to pay for local improvements and digging wells, because they directly benefit from them. They only don't have to go out and dig themselves, but they would have to pay others who do their digging for them. This is reflected in the Rambam's words as brought above in B, תלמידי חכמים אינם יוצאין בעצמן לעשות עם כל הקהל בבנין וחפירה של מדינה.

☞3. While this practice pertained throughout the time of the Shoftim and the time of Shaul, Dovid Hamelech ended the exemption as soon as he became king, and all the Bnei Torah had to join the army.

a. People who were obligated to leave their homes and yeshivos to join the army of Dovid Hamelech could be sure that Kashrus, nekiyus hadibbur, Tzniyus, and Shemiras Shabbos were observed at a standard as high as their own. That might not be the case today.

b. Even if C-3-a is true, that doesn't necessarily absolve people from finding or creating an alternative service that would satisfy their needs.

I have to reiterate the essential point:It is clear that the tension between a life of immersive Limud HaTorah and military service is an issue as old as Klal Yisrael- perhaps even older, considering Chazal's "criticism" of Avraham Avinu's use of Talmidei Chachamim in the war against the four kings(Nedarim 32a, and see Sotah 10b.) This will never be resolved. One might even speculate that the tension is a formative dialectic of the character of Klal Yisrael.

Back to Tanach:
The reason I didn't mention the Radak is that I couldn't decide whether he belonged with the Ibn Ezra or the Sforno.

In a different volume of the Netziv's introduction to the Sheiltos - this one is on Bamidbar/Devarim- he says another interesting thing about the role of Yissachar and other Talmidei Chachamim during the battle- they did not learn in their Batei Medrash and they did not go home at night. They went out to the battlefield and sat and learned in the soldiers' tents, near the front line. (He repeats this idea almost verbatim in his Haamek Davar (Devarim 33:18.))

8 comments:

Regarding the (lack of) war tax on Levi - what you say is a possibility, but note that in the same place it says David hamelech drafted Yisachar, it is also says he drafted Levi'im and Kohanim (actually many more than Yisacharites).

You forgot to mention the criteria of וכל אחיהם הםכימי להם that the Nezviv on the She'iltos sticks in. If the masses did not consent (and there is no reason to think they had an obligation to do so) then the arrangement was off. Paying the tax was a means of buying consent.

Eli- I put it in.Chaim- yaah, I typed it and wasn't paying attention to what I was typing. The passuk there just says מאתיים יודעי בינה וכל אחיהם על פיהם, but it's not clear what וכל אחיהם על פיהם means. What's al pihem? Apparently the Netziv decided it means וכל אחיהם הסכימו להם. That sure changes things. It doesn't affect the Sforno, but the Sforno certainly doesn't say the contrary.

Now that you point out the Netziv's addition: what does it mean? Does he mean to emphasize that the people who are joining the army should be happy to allow or even approve of Yissachar's deferment? Or does it mean, as you say, that they agreed because Yissachar paid them off? And why did David Hamelech end it if everyone was ok with it?

The payoff idea also answers the kashe from the Rambam -- it was not a tax in the ordinary sense.

I have no idea whether he means this is an ideal or just some ad hoc accomodation because of the $ that changed hands - not enough there to draw a conclusion.

I assume Dovid ended it because at some point the cost in manpower could no longer be afforded. I don't think it has to do with the standards of frumkeit (your 3a point) being higher in the army once Dovid became king. Do you think there was that much of a difference in frumkeit between when Yehoshua led the army vs. when Dovid was in charge?

As for whether it was "an ideal or just some ad hoc accommodation," I suggest the former. If it were the latter, every shevet that could afford it would buy their way out. The fact that it was limited to Yissachar proves that it was only allowed/approved of because it was in furtherance of limud hatorah.

What changed by David, no, I doubt that the OU and the Briskers suddenly came in to save the day. Maybe it was a matter of needing more soldiers. On this certainly it is hard to say anything conclusive. Unless I find another Netziv in the Mechilta or something.

As mentioned in Megila 3a, it seems that even the soldiers on the front lines, in the midst of a siege, were also expected to reserve time for talmud torah; there the gemara recounts Yehoshua's encounter with the Malach, who came to chastise the bitul torah taking place. I assume that was not an isolated complaint on Yehoshua, rather on all of klal yisroel- similar to the complaint of missing the korban tamid as mentioned there. This does not prove, however, that those who learned primarily and those who fought were the same; all it shows is that even those in the army were required to mantain some level of limud torah. In any case, however, one could say that kivush ha'aretz differed in that the varied roles of klal yisrael had not yet crystallized, in particular the bind Yissochor had with his land; thus, all were equal in learning, and in fighting.

Gut voch. You should not be wasting your time here with us baalei batim.

Regarding your first point: Yes, even the regular soldiers were expected to learn. But, as you say, that just illustrates how much greater hasmada was expected from the professional Bnei Torah.

Since your first point is most likely true, your second point about the development of the distinctions among the Shevatim is not necessary.But since you mention it, let's think about it for a moment.Your point about not having yet settled down would certainly be relevant according to the Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel. But the relevance to Sforno and Netziv isn't as clear, because having or not having land wouldn't have any relation to the character of the Shevatim.

Unless you mean that everyone was like Yissachar as long as they were in the Midbar and before chiluk ha'aretz, they were the Dor Dei'ah that was totally involved in learning, until they settled down, at which point their specific-shevet-character developed, at which point the other shevatim moved away from their focus on learning more than Yissachar did. Ok, that makes sense. But as I say, your first point is so mistavra that it renders further discussion unnecessary.